Featured Articles

Infant and suckling, camel and ass: Armenians as prototypical Amalekites

/9 Comments/in /by

In the earliest annals of Jewish history a people known as the Amalekites had their name and reputation forever infamed by the kosher chronicles of the Pentateuch. These Hamitic-Arab speakers south of the Negev desert became the first mortal enemies of the Israelites in a neighborhood trend that continues to this day. The Amalekites were vanquished on orders from the Hebrew God, but you wouldn’t know it listening to the bellicose screeds of modern Israeli politicians. For the memory of the Amalekites was morbidly preserved by the Jews over the ages and employed like a wandering specter, projected onto their main enemy of the day via the collective metaphor Amalek.

Fast-forward to the present and Amalek is in a most prolific flux, with both Palestinians and Iranians being the target of Knesset firebrands who quote the Torah’s commands to “Wipe out the memory of Amalek” and “Never forget what Amalek did to you.” These religious commands, while nominally contradictory, are in fact ritually celebrated as a paradox during Purim. The Amalekites were the ones wiped out—and the Jews still haven’t forgiven them for it, with the bad blood of earlier episodes in their shared history truly preventing bygones from being bygones. In the estimation of Jewish leaders, lugging around victimhood for centuries didn’t have to be heavy cargo—rather the memory of Amalek could provide motivation and momentum from the rearguard. A primeval grudge turned into a psychological weapon that the Jews have gotten more mileage out of compared to anything else in their caravan of hagiography.

During the Middle Ages, a Renaissance in Amalek antagonization saw Jewry diversify this offensive asset to encompass Armenians, European Crusaders and Muslim Arabs simultaneously.[1] The fact that two Amaleks could be mutual adversaries was no problem for the Judeo-centric model of the universe, indeed by the twentieth century both National-Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union under Stalin were called Amalek in rabbinic circles.[2] Even Raul Hilberg—the man credited with tabulating the war’s most important victim count in a scientific and dispassionate way—wrote in his memoir that he insisted on “presenting Amalek with all his features as an aggregate of German functionaries.”[3]

Amidst the generational Amaleks, however, stands one epochal incarnation of Amalek that is exceptional for its sheer longevity and inexplicable origin: Armenia. The Hebrew chronicle Sefer Yosippon shows this assignment to be at least a thousand years old,[4] the term becoming exclusively anti-Armenian in the nineteenth century. Some Jews in the Middle East also used the auxiliary epithet Timheh—another biblical instruction that translates to You shall blot out / erase.[5] Ashkenazim once used the related term mokh for Armenians, according to Michael Wex’s tribute to the Yiddish language, Born to Kvetch.[6]

At this point readers may be wondering what terrific transgressions befell the Jews in order to warrant such disdain for the Armenian people. Alas, here the collective contribution of a millennium of history amounts to—a bagel. In no source, Jewish or Gentile, is a backstory provided that attempts to justify this blood libel. On the contrary, what is known from Armenia’s illustrious history (which featured an empire 12 times larger than the current state) is that there was not a single instance of Jewish persecution. Could it be that the Armenians were a convenient holding category for Jewish enmity during the early middle ages, when intercommunal relations were fairly serene?

In Ottoman times, one Armenian intellectual attempted to get to the bottom of the matter. Eremia Ch’elebi (1637–1695) engaged the influential physicians Aharon and Mordecai in debate as part of his Polemics with Jews, though much of the discourse could be characterized as petty gossip, hurt feelings and the blood libel canard (which actually post-dates the Armenia-Amalek designation by two centuries).[7] The English consul to Smyrna, Sir Paul Rycaut (1629–1700), was likely much closer to the truth when implicating bitterness as the prime motive: “the Jews esteem [Armenians] to have been of the ancient Race of the Amalekites, being the People whom they envy because they will not easily cheat them in their dealings.”[8]

Armenians are a relatively high IQ people suited to honorable work in commerce, so they too occupied the niche role of diaspora merchants as might be expected of a nation at the crossroads of continents, religions and races. Nowadays they find themselves sandwiched between Muslims, recently losing more territory to the Azeris, while their sacred Mount Ararat remains occupied by Anatolian Turks.

What might the Caucasus have looked like had the Arabs not invaded from the south and the Turks not settled from the north? Probably more different than you can imagine. A two-millennia-old ethnographic account by Isigonus of Nicaea describes the people of the Eastern Caucasus as having white hair.[9] A seventh-century source adds that these same people had blue-gray eyes “so that they see better by night than by day”[10]—a conjecture since verified by evolutionary science.

For the Armenians, the seventh century is when their region began to alter for the worse. A formidable new enemy in the Khazars swept through and killed many, among them Prince Gregory. They besieged the luxurious city of Tbilisi, according to an Armenian chronicler, but when the siege ultimately failed, the townsfolk began to parody the retreating “King of the Huns” by adorning an effigy with a huge pumpkin that caricatured his Turco-Mongoloid physiognomy.[11] Tenth-century Armenian historian Movses Daskhurantsi was cruder still, referring to them as “that ugly, insolent, broad-faced, eyelashless mob in the shape of women with disheveled hair.”[12] In addition to the enmity accrued through centuries of conflict, there may have been a creedal one, as the Khazars had begun practicing Islam and Judaism.

By now most readers would be aware of the conversion story as preserved in Judah Halevi’s Kuzari, wherein a rabbi outwits Christian and Muslim rivals to convince the Khazarian king of the Judaic religion. There is, however, another source on the conversion of the Khazars that implicates the Armenians. The so-called Schechter Letter was found in a Cairo synagogue in 1912 and conveys tenth-century Khazarian events in Hebrew writing. If true, it means that Judaism among the Khazars was seeded by Jews fleeing persecution in Armenia and Persia. This would also go some way to explaining the traditional cordiality between Jews and Turks—the latter of whom have never been called Amalek. Could the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians after WWI have been co-directed by the influential Dönmeh Jewish stratum of the Ottoman ruling class? That is the accusation of media mogul and politician Tigran Karapetyan. And why do the Azeris, whose ethnonym is apparently unrelated to the Khazars, keep such close ties with the Israelis?

Following the loss of the Artsakh territory to Azerbaijan under scandalous circumstances, just three million Armenians live in the fatherland, as they call it, compared to six million abroad. Armenia’s traditional allies have gone their separate ways while the EU and US now form the strategic partners of this rump state. Kim Kardashian would be a fitting special envoy.

In the past, especially Soviet times, Armenians went to Russia and did rather well for themselves. Garry Kasparov (Kasparian) is a famous example while less well-known figures include the current Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (Kalantaryan) and the head of Russia Today Margarita Simonyan. By contrast, the diaspora in the United States is significantly smaller, although wealthier. This is thanks to the likes of billionaire Las Vegas developer Kirk Kerkorian—not to be confused with Mark Krikorian, who has led the conservative Center for Immigration Studies since 1995.

What seems to distinguish the Armenian diaspora from others, accentuating their natural entrepreneurship, are levels of uninhibitedness, eccentricity and risk-taking behavior that seem substantially elevated. The real-life Wolf of Wall Street Paul Bilzerian epitomizes this psychometric profile, as does euthanasia pioneer Dr. Death, real name Jack Kevorkian. Plastic surgery pioneer and pop icon Cherilyn Sarkisian, better known as Cher, turned eighty this year—but that has not stopped her from dating a Black man half her age.

On the political front, Armenia’s first racialist movement Hosank, deemed to be neo-Nazi by some, was unsurprisingly launched by someone from the diaspora. California-born Hayk Nazaryan taught physics as an adjunct professor at California State University, but with a name like Nazaryan he must have thought himself divinely appointed for his current role. Though he doesn’t quite look the part, members of the alt-right some years ago came to a common understanding that Persians and Armenians form their own special category of White: Hairyans.

Several Jewish outlets and organizations keep lists of individuals disturbing the politically correct peace, and as of 2026 two ethnic Armenians regularly appear at the top of the antisemitism charts:  political commentator Ana Kasparian and entrepreneur Dan Bilzerian. While Kasparian earned her mantle solely for being a strong critic of Israel, Bilzerian has gone supernova in railing against all aspects of Jewish power, subversion of morals, ethnoreligious supremacism and the corruption of Congress.

Much has been made of the murky origins of Dan Bilzerian’s wealth, being the son of corporate raider Paul Bilzerian who for many years has avoided paying a $62 million judgment. In the meantime, Dan allegedly won millions playing high-stakes poker against businessmen. What can’t be denied is that Bilzerian Jr. has become his own brand, the King of Instagram, and he has parlayed that into a diverse business portfolio. For several years he indulged in and promoted a playboy lifestyle, juggling an unholy trinity of addictions to drugs, sex and gambling. By the age of 25, he had already suffered two heart attacks.

Detractors of Bilzerian point to another character flaw so often present in those seeking fame and fortune: the tendency to manipulate or embellish the truth. He’s done it to such a degree that people have questioned whether his lifestyle and abode is one elaborate Potemkin village of paid actresses and rented mansions. As an example, he often claims to have been a cop for four years, when in reality he merely obtained “reserve police credentials” through a former program run by a corrupt police department in New Mexico.

Those on the hard right see a lot in his character profile that could be described as Trumpian, or even Jewish, but by his own admission “12% doesn’t make you a jew.” Interestingly, his surname is one of the few in Armenia of unknown etymology, with the patronym Bilzer sounding like it was plucked from the lyrics of Bohemian Rhapsody. But beggars can’t be choosers when it comes to influential figures willing to take on Jewish power, no holds barred, so for this we ought to be grateful. By all accounts, Bilzerian has left behind his lifestyle of debased values to commit to a cause beyond self-interest, with a political agenda that is, as the youth say, based.

Earlier this year, Bilzerian put words into action and his money where his mouth is by running for Florida’s 6th congressional district. The goal was to unseat the incumbent Randy Fine, a feat that sounds like it requires giant paddles because Fine is a man whose calorie intake is on par with his legislative gluttony. His loathsome Israel sycophantism and oratory clumsiness collided most spectacularly in this defense against historical Jewish expulsion, while he’s also tweeted about not washing his hands after meeting Benjamin Netanyahu for the first time.

Unfortunately for Bilzerian, having spent millions to oust the “fat Jew,” Fine still won, leaving Bilzerian convinced of electoral fraud. The unusual distribution of incoming votes for Fine suggests foul play, while Bilzerian managed to lose votes previously announced in his favor. Moreover, Bilzerian’s Twitter account was shadow-banned throughout the campaign and miraculously restored the day after the primary, showing that levers were being pulled in high places by a fearful lobby.

Bilzerian believes that Massie was also cheated in his primary, and he would know since the two are in close communication. Tucker Carlson is another close friend—between the three of them one will surely run for president in 2028. Bilzerian is the least likely because of his track record, although there is a certain effectiveness and practicality to his clear, expressive and unapologetic style. He’s at his very best when he’s pointing out that the problem is much deeper than just Zionism. And the data suggest he’s not wrong. Sixty-five percent of Jewish Israelis say they believe a modern incarnation of Amalek exists. Of these believers, ninety-three percent think that the commandment to “erase Amalek’s memory” is still relevant. This is the wording that Israeli social scientists prefer to use, and not later commands from the Jewish God to “slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

To this we may as well add pet rocks and sea monkeys, because such portents of the Hebraic hegemon—the protagonist of Passover—are there not merely for dramatic effect. Such edicts reinforce the notion that, according to Jewish semantics and theological taxonomy, goyim are also considered livestock. The right approach for gentiles, therefore, is not to adapt the linguistic trappings of their antagonists. Bilzerian would be the first to point out that by appropriating such derogatory designations, the people who benefit most from making Amalek great again are the likes of Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. Nevertheless, understanding that on some level we are all perceived as Amalek—either dormant, passive or active—is a lesson on Jewish projection and parapsychosis not to be ignored.

[1] Adam J. Silverstein, Haman: A Biography (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2025), 166–67.

[2] Elliott S. Horowitz, “From the Generation of Moses to the Generation of the Messiah: The Jews Confront ‘Amalek’ and His Incarnations,” Zion 64, no. 4 (1999): 425–54. [Article in Hebrew; title translated.]

[3] Raul Hilberg, The Politics of Memory: The Journey of a Holocaust Historian (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1996), 132.

[4] Sefer Yosippon, ed. David Flusser, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1978–80), 2:487.

[5] Isaak Markon, “Armenia,” in The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (New York: Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 1939), 482–83.

[6] Michael Wex, Born to Kvetch: Yiddish Language and Culture in All Its Moods (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2005), 122–23.

[7] Kʻēōmiwrchean V1155, 83.

[8] Rycaut [1679] 1970, 387.

[9] Pliny the Elder, Natural History 7.12.

[10] Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae 9.2.65.

[11] Dan D. Y. Shapira, “Armenian and Georgian Sources on the Khazars: A Re-Evaluation,” in The World of the Khazars: New Perspectives, ed. Peter B. Golden, Haggai Ben-Shammai, and András Róna-Tas (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 307–52.

[12] Movsēs Dasxurancʻi, The History of the Caucasian Albanians, trans. C. J. F. Dowsett (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), bk. 2, chap. 11, 83–84.

 

Soccer: White Nationalist Refuge

/13 Comments/in /by

Marching Croatian soccer fans, Split, Croatia, October 15, 2026

Soccer matches have long been a secular religion for millions across East and Central Europe, often standing in for a suppressed national and racial identity. The aftermath of the recent match between the Croatian soccer club Hajduk Split and the Dutch side Ajax, which is historically associated with the Jewish community, drew widespread condemnation from multiple EU media outlets. The game itself went fine—until Croatian supporters began chanting anti-Jewish slogans  —  which happens to be a far more dangerous game to play.

Police in Split have arrested several people after members of Torcida, a group of hardcore supporters of Hajduk Split football club, marched through the city chanting antisemitic slogans, including “Trample, trample the Jews,” “Auschwitz, Auschwitz,” and “Rise, Adolf”, referencing Adolf Hitler.

The anti-Croat smear campaign kicked off in the media immediately afterward. This was merely the latest installment in an eighty-year campaign of liberal and communist propaganda that paints Croats and their German enablers as irredeemable crypto-fascists just waiting to open a new Auschwitz. Whenever a media piece touches on Croatia or Germany in connection with WWII, the reader is immediately treated to the usual litany of slogans about “the rise of Ustašism” or the hidden beast of “neo-Nazism.” The media outcry against the Croatian soccer fans of Hajduk’s Split-Torcida fan club was so fierce that the Croatian courts rushed overnight to file indictments — all in the name of the struggle against racial prejudice and the preservation of the sacrosanct memory of the Holocaust. And of course, the unspoken issue of race hung over the match: Croatian and other East European teams are exclusively White, while Ajax and most Western European soccer clubs field largely non-White squads.

The defeated Dutch club Ajax is itself hardly free of bizarre symbolism. Its old stadium stood in Amsterdam’s historic Jewish quarter and originally attracted a large Jewish crowd. Rival European fans often turned the very name “Ajax” into an antisemitic taunt, which eventually prompted the club to adopt a strong philosemitic and pro-Israeli stance as a core part of its identity. Yet the symbolic paradox runs deeper. The name Ajax comes from a mythical Greek pagan hero who shares nothing whatsoever with biblical Old-Testament Jewish heritage or the perpetual victimhood and kvetching in the Book of Job. The name borne by this Dutch club belongs to a Greek warrior from Homer’s Iliad — a figure far closer to the German mythical hero Siegfried of the medieval Nibelungenlied, an epic that still enjoys massive popularity among German nationalists of every stripe.

Victimhood as a Culture of Necrophilia

European World War II memorial politics displays a glaring bias regarding the victims of Allied WWII crimes. Following the constant Jewish commemoration of their WWII losses, one gets the impression that every side is now appropriating its dead rather than caring for its living. Across the EU, critical scrutiny of official death tolls attributed to fascists, National Socialists and their allies is either criminalized or demonized by the media under the convenient label of “revisionism,” while the mass atrocities of communist regimes and the Jews in it remain virtually off-limits. The endlessly contested death toll at Jasenovac—a WWII concentration camp run by the Croatian pro-fascist Ustaše—illustrates this logical absurdity: the lack of proper forensic investigation and the wild discrepancies between official estimates from Zagreb and Belgrade prove that historical figures are still weaponized as propaganda ammunition rather than treated as objects of genuine scientific inquiry. If the ruling cuckservative antifascist class in Zagreb and Belgrade cannot even agree on the actual body count at WWII Jasenovac, who exactly is lying? In order to offset the stigma of being the designated “antisemites“ or “bad Nazis,” both sides cozy up to the state of Israel—a recent example being the high-level meeting between prominent Israeli officials and their Serbian counterparts in Bosnia’s Republika Srpska.

Similar patterns of name-calling appear more and more in the Croatian judiciary. Courts increasingly traffic in vague phrases imported from the EU that reek of the old Yugoslav-communist textbook. The French call this communist jargon la langue de bois—”wooden language“; the Germans call it Betonsprache—”petrified“, or “concrete speech“. In practice, under the holy banner of fighting fascism and defending the postwar “anti-fascist order,” legislators and prosecutors get to redefine “freedom of speech” however it suits them best. The fact that the main coastal promenade along the ritzy Riviera of Opatija in Croatia still bears the name of the communist mass murderer and former Yugoslav dictator Josip Broz Tito does not bother Croatia’s ruling class. By simple deductive logic, Tito remains for them a symbol of virtue and upright rule. It is equally telling that Croat apparatchiks from the strong left-leaning parties never bother to show up at commemorations held at the country’s countless communist killing fields. Weaponizing legal charges against Hajduk-Split’s soccer fans sets a dangerous precedent: every Croatian conservative group and intellectual might eventually end up in the crosshairs of the EU judiciary, just as they did under the old communist Yugoslav criminal code.

Behind this media and legal indictment of Hajduk-Split supporters lies the usual Croatian bureaucratic inertia and spineless servility toward decrees from Brussels and Tel Aviv. To justify their repressive apparatus, state institutions and mainstream media constantly regurgitate the same narrative about the mortal threat of right-wing or “Ustaša extremism”—whether the target is the ethno-rock nationalist singer Marko Perković Thompson or the soccer ultras of Hajduk-Split. Meanwhile, the double standard is glaring: honest discussion of past communist atrocities is carefully suppressed, while any remembrance of the victims of Yugoslav communism is reduced to empty, ceremonial Catholic Church folklore. The ultimate absurdity in Croatia is that former communist apparatchiks and their spiritual heirs have simply rebranded themselves with modern globalist and anti-fascist jargon in order to whitewash their own responsibility for Yugoslav-communist mass killings and state repression. All things considered, what on earth do they expect from Hajduk-Split’s soccer fans?

Honest accounts of European and Croatian history are not black-and-white morality plays that can be reduced to simplistic ideological formulas. Today the terms “fascism” and “Nazism” have been completely gutted of their original meaning and are deployed almost exclusively as smear words against political opponents. Soviet strongman Joseph Stalin himself denounced his rival Lev Bronstein (alias Trotsky)—the Jewish architect of the Bolshevik Revolution—as a “fascist agent.” The early Croatian communist and personal friend of Tito, Andrija Hebrang, was branded an “Ustaša agent” by his own Yugoslav fellow travelers shortly after World War II. Countless leftists in America and the EU now routinely denounce Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “fascist.” And during the collapse of Yugoslavia, influential outlets such as the German weekly Der Spiegel and The New York Times  slammed Croat President Franjo Tuđman as a “revisionist,” an “antisemite,” and an “ultra-rightist.” By that same logic, today’s Croatian ruling elite ought to ban the name Franjo Tuđman—the very name they now decorate themselves with.

Instead of imposing media newspeak, selective justice, and bureaucratic echo chambers, the study of history requires uniform standards and total freedom of scholarly inquiry. That said, every cloud has a silver lining. Should the Left seize the reins in the U.S. Congress after the upcoming midterms, or should the Left return to full power in Croatia tomorrow, one must expect the immediate breakdown of the state apparatus and widespread anarchy. Yet many right-wingers — whether on the Croatian or the American Right — are also mistaken when they claim that communists only target anticommunists. The prime enemies of the Left have always been their own comrades-in-arms. The mainstream media largely missed a telling incident in Leipzig, Germany, on January 17, 2026: rival leftist factions physically beat the living daylights out of one another, exposing their own ideological schizophrenia — one group waving Palestinian flags while the other waved Israeli flags.

Wrapped up in its own sectarian purges, the modern Antifa-Left across Europe, America, and Croatia has morphed into a totalitarian movement that displays fanatical intolerance, dogmatism, and a complete incapacity for political dialogue. This should come as no surprise. The entire history of the European Left is soaked in mutual mass killings: from the Spanish Civil War in 1936, through the Stalinist purges, to the bloody breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991 — whose warring political parties  were, in the vast majority of cases, former communist comrades from Zagreb and Belgrade.

Why France is Burning

/23 Comments/in , /by

It is hardly news to observe that many of the European nations are struggling at the moment.  Inflation, unemployment, budgetary crises, and high energy costs are all taking their toll.  Many governments are also suffering a crisis of credibility, as they take extreme and anti-democratic action to ward off “the far right”—and in doing so, paralyze themselves, both through internal division and through weak leadership.  Furthermore, European nations have collectively made some disastrous foreign policy decisions; they have gone all-in on their support and defense of Ukraine, they have done nothing to oppose Israeli crimes against humanity in Palestine, and they have done nothing to oppose the illegal and unethical US-Israeli war against Iran; they are losing on all three fronts, all at once.

Of all the nations in crisis at the moment, none are worse off than France.  Nationwide riots are in the news every day, and the government, so far, has proven utterly incapable of an adequate response.  News coverage and analysis is abominable; no one has offered more than the most trivial assessment of the situation (“crowded classrooms”, “underfunded social programs”, “high cost of living”, etc.).

One obvious approach to understanding why France is uniquely in such bad shape is to look at the underlying social demographics.  Even the briefest of inquiries along this line is enlightening.

I would put forth the hypothesis that a Western nation’s social stability or unrest is a function of the presence of non-Western demographic factors—or in simple terms, a function of the number of people of non-Western ethnic origin.  Those nations with the fewest non-Westerners will enjoy the greatest stability and harmony, and those with many will suffer the most discontent and unrest.  Or so I contend.

For at least the past century, three non-Western demographic groups have historically been at the center of social disorder within Europe:  Jews, Blacks, and Muslims.  Thus, as a quick, first-order assessment of the situation, one can simply evaluate the numbers of each of these three ethnicities in the European nations and then look for correlations to social unrest.

If we do even a cursory assessment of these three ethnicities, we find that three nations have the largest populations:  Germany, the UK, and France.  (I exclude from this analysis the European micro-nations like Monaco and Andorra, and I exclude Russia, Ukraine, and Turkey, which, by some measures, are “European.”)  On the one hand, this is unsurprising because these are the three largest nations by overall population, and thus it would be expected that they would have large numbers of all minority groups.  Still, large numbers possess a mass-effect, especially when situated within a single nation.  This is a well-established concept, going by various names, including ‘critical mass theory,’ ‘agglomeration theory,’ and in several aspects of social philosophy.  As a result, Hungary, for example, has more Jews on a percentage basis than Germany, but Hungarian Jews do not possess the social capital or collective energy that the larger pool of German Jews do.  And Sweden has a higher percent of Muslims (8%) than either Germany or the UK, but their small numbers yield a smaller overall effect.

My estimates of each ethnicity are as follows; where I found a range given, I used the higher figures, assuming that “official” numbers are almost certainly undercounts:

Jews:

Germany          170,000

UK                   310,000

France              600,000

Blacks:

Germany          1,000,000

UK                   3,000,000

France              5,500,000

Muslims:

UK                   4,100,000

Germany          5,600,000

France              6,600,000

The immediately apparent fact is that France, by a far measure, has clearly the most of all three of these troublesome ethnicities—the most, in fact, of any European nation.  Again, this is not obvious, especially considering that France has the smallest population of the three nations cited here.

These figures are charted below, first for Blacks and Muslims, then for Jews:

According to my thesis that these particular ethnic groups have traditionally been the most problematic in Europe, we should expect, given these numbers, that France would suffer from the most discord and most social unrest—and indeed, that now seems to be the case.  This is not a new development; trouble has been brewing there for well over a century.  Intensive colonization of both northern and sub-Saharan Africa began for France in the 1830s and continued well into the twentieth century; colonies are known, historically, to be the initial driving factor in non-Western immigration.  As for Jews, they began flooding into the country from about 1700, with numbers rising to almost 100,000 by the late 1800s; it was at this time that such critics as Eduard Drumont could write his landmark work, Jewish France (1886), arguing for a large-scale corruption of French society already at that date.  Drumont claimed, in fact, that Jews owned slightly over half of all wealth in France, despite being a 0.2% minority—an astonishing situation.

In any case, these conditions have clearly taken their toll.  By my analysis, France today is in a near-terminal state.  To have the most of any one of these three minorities is bad enough, but for a single nation to have the most of all three is catastrophic in the long run.  On my thesis, France has no hope of social stability; continued decline is inevitable until it radically reduces its numbers of all three groups.

Under current conditions, with a presidential election coming in six months, it appears that Marine Le Pen is likely to become president.  Were I an advisor to her, I would suggest a radical course of action: construct a plan to reduce all three groups by 90% within four years.  Doing so would certainly lead to a miraculous resurgence for France, and Le Pen herself would be hailed as true national heroine—a Charles Martel and Joan of Arc rolled into one.  Let us see how she fares on this front.

Finally, I note without comment that the US has large populations of all three of the unfortunate minorities: 6 million Muslims, 7 million Jews, and 53 million Blacks.  I leave it to the reader to compare these numbers to France and to assess the future prospects of America.

David Skrbina, PhD, is a former professor of philosophy from the University of Michigan, Dearborn. He is the author or editor of a dozen books, including The Jesus Hoax (2nd ed., 2024), The Metaphysics of Technology (Routledge, 2015), and Panpsychism in the West (MIT Press, 2017).

Prose and Prejudice: Cluing through Wu-2’s Views on Jews

/9 Comments/in , /by

If God doesn’t exist, how do you explain cats, peacock feathers, and the prose of P.G. Wodehouse? If the Devil doesn’t exist, how do you explain cats, plague, and the prose of Judith Butler? As you can see, cats turn up on both sides of the ledger: on God’s for their charm, beauty, and mystery; on the Devil’s for their selfishness, cruelty, and painful-by-design teeth and claws.[1]

Strangulation, Satanism and suicide

But I know a human being who turns up on both sides of the ledger too: the English writer Evelyn Waugh (1903-66). He usually wrote like an angel, but sometimes behaved like a devil. Like Wodehouse’s, his books are a joy to read; unlike Wodehouse’s, his books contain very dark and even depraved scenes and themes. Inter alia, there’s a decapitation with “carpenter’s tools” in Decline and Fall (1928); a cannibal feast in Black Mischief (1932); a literary, and literal, enslavement in A Handful of Dust (1934); two suicides and a supremely undignified cremation in The Loved One (1948); and strangulation, Satanism and state-sanctioned suicide in his short stories and novellas.[2]

Prose by the prejudiced: P.G. Wodehouse’s Golf Omnibus and Evelyn Waugh’s Black Mischief

Waugh’s prose always reminds me of Mozart; Waugh’s scenes sometimes remind me of gangsta rap. What unites Wodehouse and Waugh — a pairing we can call Wu-2, if we adopt the name for “W” I proposed in “The World’s Worst Word” — is the beauty of their writing. What separates them is the sunniness of Wodehouse and the satire of Waugh. But something else that unites them is that they both wrote about Jews in what could be called anti-Semitic ways. It’s just that one of these sublime writers was subtle and the other was blatant in that prejudice. Who was which? Well, here are two pieces of blatant anti-Semitism from Waugh’s A Handful of Dust:

“Ben says natives aren’t humans at all really.”

“Ah, but he’s thinking of Negroes, I expect. These are pure Semitic type.”

“What’s that?”

“The same as Jews.”

“Ben says Jews are worse than natives.” (A Handful of Dust, chapter 3, part III)

“This place stinks of Yids,” said Baby.

“I always think that’s the sign of a good hotel, don’t you?” said Tony.

“Like hell,” said Baby. (A Handful of Dust, chapter 4, part II)

Yes, that is blatant anti-Semitism, but it isn’t being espoused by Waugh himself, rather by two of his characters. And their espousal damns them as inferior. The crudity of the prejudice establishes the crudity of the character: Baby is a working-class scold and possibly a prostitute; Ben is a working-class riding instructor whose views are being repeated by a naïve upper-class child. In Waugh’s fiction, speaking about Jews like that is a sure sign of inferiority.

Synagogues and snake-temples

And so, despite his well-established reputation as a curmudgeon and racist, Waugh was not blatant in his anti-Semitism. No, he was subtle. Waugh didn’t think Jews were at the bottom of the racial scale: he thought they were almost at the bottom of the theological scale. There’s enormous significance in the order he gives to various denominations and religions in one passage from his hilarious but highly un-woke novel Black Mischief. To set the scene: a pair of Englishwomen are visiting the African city of Debra Dowa during a “festival of sterility” and have climbed onto the roof of their hotel to escape an incursion of natives, who have been sold tickets to their room by Mr Youkoumian, the hotel’s unscrupulous Armenian proprietor:

[F]rom where they sat the whole city lay very conveniently exposed to their view. They could see the irregular roofs of the palace buildings in their grove of sapling blue gums and before them the still unfinished royal box from which the Emperor proposed to review the procession; small black figures could be observed working on it, tacking up coloured flags, spreading carpets and bobbing up the path with pots of palm and fern. They could see the main street of the city diverge to the barracks on one side and the Christian quarter on the other. They could see the several domes and spires of the Catholic, Orthodox, Armenian, Anglican, Nestorian, American Baptist and Mormon places of worship; the minaret of the mosque, the Synagogue and the flat white roof of the Hindu snake temple. (Black Mischief, chapter 6)

Waugh ordered the list by distance from Divine Truth: Catholicism possessed it entirely; then came the Christian denominations in order of their closeness to Catholicism; then came Islam, which at least honored Christ as a virgin-born, miracle-working prophet; last-but-one came Judaism, which had rejected and crucified Christ; and finally, most distant of all from the True Faith, came Hinduism and the absurdities of its animal-worship. Setting Judaism in last-but-one place like that was anti-Semitic by the standards of corrupt and decadent modern Catholicism. But it was perfectly orthodox Catholicism when Black Mischief was published in the 1930s. There was no nonsense about Jews being “elder brothers in the Faith” before the heretical innovations of the Jew-infiltrated Second Vatican Council (1962-5) (see articles on Vat II at TOO). Instead, millions of Catholics around the world prayed every Good Friday for God to lift the “blindness” of the “perfidious Jews.”

Magic but maleficent

It’s true that Waugh speaks earlier in the novel of a “Jewish nihilist from Berlin” throwing a bomb during an imperial coronation, but that’s anti-Semitic only in the sense that it reflected a negative truth about Jews rather than censoring it, as Jews would have preferred. In all likelihood a bomb-throwing nihilist from Berlin would have been Jewish in those days. That’s why I argue that the blatant anti-Semitism of the Wu-2 came not from curmudgeonly Evelyn Waugh, but from cuddly P.G. Wodehouse. However, I’m not talking about the accusation against Wodehouse that he collaborated with the Nazis during World War Two. That accusation was comprehensively refuted by George Orwell in his article “In Defence of P.G. Wodehouse” (1945).

Instead, I’m talking about a little-known Wodehouse story called “The Magic Plus Fours” (1922). It’s a characteristically sunny story, but it’s also as close as Wodehouse ever got to the sinister and supernatural. Narrated by the “Oldest Member” of a golf club, it’s about a dedicated but mediocre golfer called Wallace Chesney, who is always buying bizarre new clubs in a futile quest to improve his game. One day he sees a putter of “pre-eminently lunatic design” in the window-display of “COHEN BROS.,” a firm of Jewish brothers who run a second-hand clothing business but deal in what Wodehouse calls “derelict goods of every description.” Pursuing the putter, Wallace enters the shop:

The shop was full of the Cohen family, sombre-eyed, smileless men with purposeful expressions; and two of these, instantly descending upon Wallace Chesney like leopards, began in swift silence to thrust him into a suit of yellow tweed. Having worked the coat over his shoulders with a shoe-horn, they stood back to watch the effect.

“A beautiful fit,” announced Isidore Cohen.

“A little snug under the arms,” said his brother Irving. “But that’ll give.”

“The warmth of the body will make it give,” said Isidore.

“Or maybe you’ll lose weight in the summer,” said Irving.

Wallace, when he had struggled out of the coat and was able to breathe, said that he had come in to buy a putter. Isidore thereupon sold him the putter, a dog collar, and a set of studs, and Irving sold him a fireman’s helmet: and he was about to leave when their elder brother Lou, who had just finished fitting out another customer, who had come in to buy a cap, with two pairs of trousers and a miniature aquarium for keeping newts in, saw that business was in progress and strolled up. His fathomless eye rested on Wallace, who was toying feebly with the putter.

“You play golf?” asked Lou. “Then looka here!”

He dived into an alleyway of dead clothing, dug for a moment, and emerged with something at the sight of which Wallace Chesney, hardened golfer that he was, blenched and threw up an arm defensively.

“No, no!” he cried.

The object which Lou Cohen was waving insinuatingly before his eyes was a pair of those golfing breeches which are technically known as Plus Fours. A player of two years’ standing, Wallace Chesney was not unfamiliar with Plus Fours — all the club cracks wore them — but he had never seen Plus Fours like these. What might be termed the main motif of the fabric was a curious vivid pink, and with this to work on the architect had let his imagination run free, and had produced so much variety in the way of chessboard squares of white, yellow, violet, and green that the eye swam as it looked upon them.

“These were made to measure for Sandy McHoots, the Open Champion,” said Lou, stroking the left leg lovingly. “But he sent ’em back for some reason or other.”

“Perhaps they frightened the children,” said Wallace, recollecting having heard that Mr. McHoots was a married man.

“They’ll fit you nice,” said Lou.

“Sure they’ll fit him nice,” said Isidore, warmly.

“Why, just take a look at yourself in the glass,” said Irving, “and see if they don’t fit you nice.”

And, as one who wakes from a trance, Wallace discovered that his lower limbs were now encased in the prismatic garment. At what point in the proceedings the brethren had slipped them on him, he could not have said. But he was undeniably in.

Wallace looked in the glass. For a moment, as he eyed his reflection, sheer horror gripped him. Then suddenly, as he gazed, he became aware that his first feelings were changing. The initial shock over, he was becoming calmer. He waggled his right leg with a certain sang-froid.

There is a certain passage in the works of the poet Pope with which you may be familiar [said the Oldest Member to his audience of one]. It runs as follows:

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien

As to be hated needs but to be seen:

Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

Even so was it with Wallace Chesney and these Plus Fours. At first he had recoiled from them as any decent-minded man would have done. Then, after a while, almost abruptly he found himself in the grip of a new emotion. After an unsuccessful attempt to analyse this, he suddenly got it. Amazing as it may seem, it was pleasure that he felt. He caught his eye in the mirror, and it was smirking. Now that the things were actually on, by Hutchinson, they didn’t look half bad. By Braid, they didn’t. There was a sort of something about them. Take away that expanse of bare leg with its unsightly sock-suspender and substitute a woolly stocking, and you would have the lower section of a golfer. For the first time in his life, he thought, he looked like a man who could play golf. (“The Magic Plus Fours,” 1922)

As the title foretells, the Plus Fours turn out to be magic, but in a maleficent way. Wallace becomes a crack golfer, but he loses his amiable personality in the process and alienates all his friends, including his fiancée Charlotte. To learn how he regains both his old self and his old friendships, you’ll have to read the story for yourself. Indeed, I recommend that any newcomer to Wodehouse read the whole of the Golf Omnibus in which “The Magic Plus Fours” is most conveniently collected.

Semitic stereotypes

After all, I hope the extract above has already shown the uninitiated how well Wodehouse could write.[3] He was called “English literature’s performing flea” in 1941 by the Irish playwright Sean O’Casey; he responded in 1953 by calling one of his own books Performing Flea. He was perfectly content not to be seen as a profound or intellectual writer. You don’t go to Wodehouse for deep or dark themes. Instead, you go for sunshine, light-hearted comedy and beautiful prose. “The Magic Plus Fours” is certainly light-hearted and written in beautiful prose. Nevertheless, it contains undeniable stereotypes about Jewish psychological intensity and dishonesty — and about Jewish predation too. Recall how Wodehouse describes the Cohen brothers “descending upon Wallace Chesney like leopards.”

Passover of Blood (2007), a much-censored study of medieval Jewish sorcery and blood-trading by the Israeli scholar Ariel Toaff (see Ron Unz’s review)

There is also a faint but unmistakable echo of ancient religious anti-Semitism. A garment forced on a goy by Jews proves both magic and maleficent. The Cohen “brethren,” as Wodehouse calls them, are a secularized and softened version of the Jewish black magicians in Christian fables — and in historical fact. As Ron Unz has described in “Oddities of the Jewish Religion,” Jews both practised sorcery and trafficked in real Christian blood during the Middle Ages. The so-called “Blood Libel,” which claimed that Jews kidnapped Christian children and drained their blood, may well have been literal truth, not libellous fantasy. The Cohen brothers of Wodehouse’s story fall into that tradition of Jewish magic and maleficence. They hypnotize Wallace into buying a garment that turns him into a crack golfer at the expense of his friendships and his happiness.

Knockout Trousers Ltd

The goy therefore has to break the garment’s spell, that is, break the spell of Jewish black magic. Accordingly, I think that Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America and the Community Security Trust (CST) in Britain would condemn that story for its anti-Semitic stereotypes and insinuations. In other words, they would condemn its realism, because Jewish salesmen did behave like that. P.G. Wodehouse cast that behavior in a comic light; George Orwell cast it in a hostile light. Orwell was another writer of beautiful prose, although he wasn’t yet writing beautifully in pre-war novels like the depressive and depressing A Clergyman’s Daughter (1935). It tells the story of Dorothy Hare, a clergyman’s genteel daughter who has a nervous breakdown and is submerged in poverty after she runs away from her selfish and exploitative father. Here’s Orwell’s portrait in the novel of another Jewish garment-seller:

The autumn weather, though fine, was growing colder. Each day the sun, fighting his losing battle against the winter, struggled a little later through the mist to dye the house-fronts with pale aquarelle colours. Dorothy was in the streets all day, or in the public library, only going back to “Mary’s” to sleep, and then taking the precaution of dragging her bed across the door. She had grasped by this time that “Mary’s” was — not actually a brothel, for there is hardly such a thing in London, but a well-known refuge of prostitutes. It was for that reason that you paid ten shillings a week for a kennel not worth five. Old “Mary” (she was not the proprietress of the house, merely the manageress) had been a prostitute herself in her day, and looked it. Living in such a place damned you even in the eyes of Lambeth Cut [a lowly district of London]. Women sniffed when you passed them, men took an offensive interest in you. The Jew on the corner, the owner of Knockout Trousers Ltd, was the worst of all. He was a solid young man of about thirty, with bulging red cheeks and curly black hair like astrakhan. For twelve hours a day he stood on the pavement roaring with brazen lungs that you couldn’t get a cheaper pair of trousers in London, and obstructing the passers-by. You had only to halt for a fraction of a second, and he seized you by the arm and bundled you inside the shop by main force. Once he got you there his manner became positively threatening. If you said anything disparaging about his trousers he offered to fight, and weak-minded people bought pairs of trousers in sheer physical terror. But busy though he was, he kept a sharp eye open for the “birds”, as he called them; and Dorothy appeared to fascinate him beyond all other “birds”. He had grasped that she was not a prostitute, but living at “Mary’s”, she must — so he reasoned — be on the very verge of becoming one. The thought made his mouth water. When he saw her coming down the alley he would post himself at the corner, with his massive chest well displayed and one black lecherous eye turned inquiringly upon her (“Are you ready to begin yet?” his eye seemed to be saying), and, as she passed, give her a discreet pinch on the backside. (A Clergyman’s Daughter, chapter 2, part 7)

Again, the ADL and CST would surely condemn that for its anti-Semitic stereotypes, that is, for its realism about Jewish behavior. Like Wodehouse, Orwell had obviously seen Jewish salesmen in action and noted their psychological intensity. Unlike Wodehouse, however, Orwell also noted Jewish lechery. He could have written about Jews even more bigotedly, but no less realistically, by describing their central role in the “white slave trade,” as trafficking in coerced European prostitutes was then called.

Jew-on-Jew predation

But the term “white slave trade” was partly a misnomer, because although the prostitutes were from Europe and were coerced, they were generally Ashkenazi Jewesses rather than White shiksas. That is, Jewish women were being preyed on by Jewish men. You may be surprised to hear that you can find fuller details of this Jew-on-Jew predation at the heavily Judeo-policed Wikipedia. There’s a very interesting article there about a Jewish gang known as the Zwi Migdal, which was allied with the “Jewish Mob” and the “Ashkenazum.” Here are extracts from the article:

The [Zwi Migdal]’s main operation was the trafficking of Jewish women from Central Europe (mainly from Warsaw) into sexual slavery and forced prostitution. The organization, whose operators were Jewish, functioned from its foundation in the 1860s until 1939.

The organisation’s annual turnover was $50 million at the turn of the 20th century. After the First World War, it had 400 members in Argentina, Buenos Aires being its main centre of operations. It had branch offices in Brazil (Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and Santos), the United States (New York City), Poland (Warsaw), South Africa, India and China.

During the 1920s the organisation grew to its largest-ever size. At its height, 430 individuals, acting as pimps and in other criminal roles, oversaw a network of 2,000 brothels and approximately 4,000 women in Argentina alone. The organization’s success stemmed from the fact that its members were bound by rules that were “based on order, discipline, and honesty.” The network was well-organized and members cooperated closely to protect their interests. […]

The organization lured girls and young women from Europe in several ways. [The researcher Tomasz] Pindel describes one ruse in which a well-mannered and elegant-looking man would appear in a poor Jewish village in Poland or Russia. He would advertise his search for young women to work in the homes of wealthy Jews in Argentina by posting an advertisement in the local synagogue. Fearful of pogroms and often in desperate economic circumstances, parents would send their daughters away with the man, hoping that this might offer them a fresh start.

Another popular ruse was to find pretty girls and marry them, usually in a quick wedding ceremony known in Yiddish as a “shtille chupah” [“silent canopy,” in reference to the traditional Jewish wedding-canopy and the absence of any official record of the marriage]. The girls bade their families farewell and boarded ships to Argentina, believing that they were on their way toward a better future. The rape of the girls and abuse as sex slaves often started on the ship. Some of them were married off to local men so that they could obtain entry visas.

Prostitutes who failed to satisfy their clients were beaten, fined, or sent to work in rural houses. Every business transaction was logged. The ruffians held a “meat market” where newly arrived girls were paraded naked in front of traders in places such as Hotel Palestina and Café Parisienne. These activities went on undisrupted because government officials, judges, and journalists frequented the brothels. City officials, politicians, and police officers were bribed. The pimps had powerful connections everywhere. The largest brothels in Buenos Aires housed as many as 60 to 80 sex slaves. Although there were brothels all over Argentina, most were in Buenos Aires, in the Jewish quarter on Junin Street. (“Zwi Migdal” at Wikipedia)

The prose at Wikipedia is rarely or never beautiful, let alone as beautiful as the prose of Wodehouse and Waugh. But weak prose can still convey powerful truths. And powerful truths about Jewish behavior are conveyed in that article at Wikipedia. The article says that the Zwi Migdal lasted from 1867 to 1939, but the central Jewish role in prostitution and pornography has never ceased.

Nowadays, however, the Jewish pimps and pornographers prey much more on shiksas, rather than on women of their own race. The Zwi Migdal might have preferred to prey on shiksas too, but anti-Semitism was stronger in those days and they must have feared a goyish backlash. In other words, gentile realism about Jewish behavior was much stronger in those days. In the 1920s even the amiable and light-hearted P.G. Wodehouse espoused realism about Jews.

A century later, in the 2020s, some of that realism about Jews has returned. The Jewish war on Nazi Germany enabled Jews to silence gentile tongues; the Jewish wars on Gaza and Iran are setting gentile tongues free again. It’s just a shame that we can’t break the ugliness and lies of Jewish control with the beauty and truth found in the prose of White writers like Wodehouse, Waugh and Orwell. John Keats, who wrote sublime poetry, told us that “Beauty is truth” and “truth beauty,” then asseverated that this is “all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.” Alas, he was wrong. But it is important to know that Whites like Wodehouse, Waugh, Orwell and Keats have created beauty and spoken truth in a way that Jews never have and never will.

[1]  A bite from a dog can do more much damage, but a bite from a cat can be much more painful. As solitary hunters, cats need to overcome their prey as quickly and efficiently as possible, so I’d suggest that their teeth and claws have evolved both to penetrate far and to be paralyzingly painful.

[2]  The strangulation is in “Mr Loveday’s Little Outing” (1935); the Satanism in “Out of Depth” (1933); and the state-sanctioned suicide in “Love Among the Ruins” (1953). See Waugh’s Collected Stories.

[3]  One example of Wodehouse’s skillful writing in that extract may be his choice of “smileless” in the description of the Cohen brothers. Why did he use that relatively rare word rather than the more common “unsmiling”? Well, try reading the sentence in question aloud using both. You’ll find that “smileless,” with its doubled liquid “l,” takes more effort and seems to last longer, emphasizing the smilelessness of the Cohens.

Nuremburg, October 16, 1946: 80 Years of Allied Lynch (In)justice!

/16 Comments/in /by
Vae Vicitis – Revenge, not justice, determined the Nuremberg show trials!
The often-cited arrogance of power, which is characterized not least by judging self-righteously from the standpoint of a presumed higher morality, without adhering to the standards of generally recognized legal principles or applying the same maxims that are supposed to apply to others to oneself, rarely, if ever, manifested in a more perverse form than 80 years ago at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. The victor’s tribunal, which simultaneously served as prosecutor and judge, was not concerned with international law or peace, but solely with destroying the institutions and elites necessary for a state.
Let’s approach the Nuremberg show trial by first recalling Bismarck’s words, which he directed at the media that were posing as public opinion when they demanded the punishment of the French Emperor Napoleon III after the Franco-German War of 1870-1871 (France declared war on Prussia). “The concepts of punishment, reward, and revenge do not belong in politics. Politics must not meddle in the affairs of Nemesis or seek to act as a judge. That is the business of divine providence. Politics is not to avenge what has happened, but to ensure that it does not happen again”, said the Chancellor of victorious Germany. However, the Nuremberg Trials did not become the foundation of an exemplary international legal order for peace; rather, the world suffers from a chronic “peace-dis/UN-order“ after this “super-Versailles.”
Prosecutor and Judge
The Nuremberg Trials lacked the principles applied to modern jurisprudence. The judges lacked impartiality: no judges from neutral states, such as Switzerland or Sweden, sat on the bench; instead, the bench was made up exclusively of representatives of the victorious nations, the warring parties. This party served as prosecutor and judge, wrote the court’s constitution, and set the criminal law norms. On August 8, 1945, the USA, Russia, England, and France signed the London Agreement establishing the tribunal; in London, they also developed the pseudo-legal framework, the so-called London Statute. Moscow criminal lawyer Prof. Traimin did much of the preliminary work and is credited with the so-called complicity theory, under which industrial leaders, scholars, engineers, officials, and soldiers were to be punished collectively. Due to Allied Control Council Law No. 10 of December 20, 1945, twelve more trials against industrialists, doctors, and lawyers took place in Germany. As a result, the axe fell on the entire German elite.
“Nulla poena sine lege”
The legal principle “Nulla poena sine lege” was completely thrown overboard by an unlawful retroactive application of criminal law. The annihilation verdicts of revenge justice were based on ex post facto laws. To punish certain crimes, such as murder, the existing legislation would have sufficed, BUT to defame Germany, new terms were needed as discursive weapons. This was the purpose of that tribunal, which prosecuted offenses that had not yet been recognized as punishable acts under either national law or international law, and which were declared punishable only after they had been committed. The procedural regulations were purpose-oriented, aimed at convicting the defendants. Significantly, the Chicago Tribune wrote on June 10, 1946, that the statute under which the defendants were being tried was Jackson’s personal invention and contrary to international law as defined in the Second Hague Convention. By inventing such a statute, Jackson granted legality to lynch justice.
Military court, a continuation of the war efforts
As a cancellation of the previous, internationally recognized legal opinion, the abolition of the right to appeal ordered by the Allies must also be considered. Similarly, no revision of the judgment ever took place, nor could it, as the London Statute also preemptively prohibited that. The trial procedure followed almost exclusively Anglo-American procedural law, which was qua natura relatively unfamiliar to the German defenders. Moreover, the Allies controlled the vast majority of documents, and the defense usually received access to exculpatory material only very late and often only partially. The interrogations of witnesses were often conducted in ways that one can hardly acknowledge without inner outrage. When Dr Otto Stahmer, Hermann Göring’s chief defense attorney, asked internationally recognized experts in international law to review the statute’s legal foundations, he nearly embarrassed the court, but the court simply prohibited the request. On July 26, 1946, American Chief Justice Robert Jackson even admitted that the Nuremberg Tribunal, as a military court, represented a continuation of the Allied nations’ war efforts.
No equality before the law
Consequently, war crimes committed by the Allies, such as the Soviet massacre at Katyn, which was falsely attributed to the Wehrmacht, the Soviet occupation of Eastern Poland, the unrestricted aerial warfare against a defenseless civilian population ordered by Winston Churchill, the mass expulsion of Germans from the Eastern territories, or the two American atomic bombings, were not prosecuted, and the defense was not even allowed to present them. Article 8 of the court’s statute also stated that a plea of superior orders does not justify excluding punishment; it did not matter that, by comparison, U.S. military regulations of 1940 and the British manual of 1936 did the opposite. So much for equality before the law. The charges of “conspiracy against peace” and “preparation for an aggressive war” turned out to be extremely artificial constructions. The principle of collective compensation was also unknown in international law until then. It is clear that no legally usable definition of “aggressive war” existed before or during the trial. Let’s just think of the Soviet war of aggression against Eastern Poland or the Baltic States. Moreover, what was then subsumed under this charge was later considered the highest fulfillment of duty, with Israel being an example, praised for its meticulous preparation for the Six-Day War. Here, even charges were brought against generals because they had opposed (!) that preparation.
The Jew Lherman alias Gaston Oulman
The court did not even conduct a customary judicial investigation of motives for a verdict, solely to avoid dealing with the question of war guilt. Judge Jackson instead warned U.S. President Truman in a letter dated July 19, 1945, that this trial would cause significant damage if it examined the political causes of the war. On August 8, 1945, Jackson reiterated to President Truman that we should not allow ourselves to be drawn into a negotiation about the causes of the war. Under such conditions, it is not surprising that the purely military surrender was inaccurately interpreted as a capitulation of the state under international law. This contributed to the instrumentalization of the Nuremberg verdicts as a justification for the expulsion and murder of Germans from the Eastern territories. At that time, there was NO independent German media coverage. Reporting focused exclusively on the prosecution’s theses. The IMT’s responsible Allied propaganda officer was the con artist Gaston Oulman, whose real name was Jo Lherman, and who had a criminal record for numerous property crimes, financial crimes, and forgery of his doctoral thesis. This Jew became the main source of information for the German people.
Morgenthau and Hooton Plan
The victor’s show trial court, presuming a higher morality that lacked ethics, was characterized by purpose-driven cynical partiality and arrogant self-righteousness. Only American judge Charles F. Wennerström had the courage to criticize the prosecution’s trial methods, at least in retrospect. On October 16, 1946, ten of the death sentences imposed in the so-called Nuremberg Trials against high-ranking leaders of the German Reich were carried out by hanging in the Nuremberg Palace of Justice. Several executions were not immediately fatal due to an insufficient drop height, causing the condemned to struggle for up to 15 minutes. Senator Robert A. Taft from Ohio stated in a speech in October 1946, among other things: “The death of the eleven condemned men at the gallows is a stain on America that will burden us for a long time.” Blind with hatred, the enforcers of the Morgenthau Plan indulged their Old Testament thirst for revenge. By the way, the American Chief Justice Robert Jackson was formerly an advisor to the aforementioned Morgenthau, from whom the notorious Morgenthau Plan originated. Today’s de-industrialization of Germany and replacement migration seem to be a delayed implementation of the Morgenthau and Hooton Plans.
Sascha Roßmüller is a German freelance journalist and book author (1972) living in Bavaria. Married since 2000. Politically active as a political writer and conference speaker. He is a member of the executive board of the German political party “Die Heimat“ (The Homeland).

This Year, I’m a One-Issue Voter: Anti-Jewish Interests

/33 Comments/in , /by

The 2026 US midterm elections are rapidly bearing down upon us, with plenty of major implications for Americans and for the world. I want to take a moment here to offer my thoughts on this pressing matter, and maybe suggest a line of thinking for all those would-be voters out there.dear

As a writer, researcher, and former professor of political philosophy, I have spent much of the past three decades thinking hard about social and political matters—mostly about how we came to be in the present predicament, and how we might get out of it. Like most people, I have a lot of different issues that I worry about. I worry about the economy, gas prices, food prices; I worry about technology and super-AI; I worry about environmental degradation; I worry about governmental incompetence and corruption; I hate to pay taxes. Ideally, in a “free and fair election,” I would assess the various candidates on such issues, weigh their various pros and cons, and then make my choice. Sure, my one vote is all but inconsequential in my state of 10 million and in a nation of 345 million, but still, I typically (but not always) go through the motions and cast my vote.

With the upcoming midterm elections, though, things are different. Now, all my normal concerns seem to fade into second place, with one issue dominating and overwhelming all the others. It is what has long been called the Jewish Question: What should we do about the pernicious Jewish presence and influence in our society?

There are two pieces to this: First, the mere fact that Jews are a pernicious presence in Western society; and second, that there is something we can and should do about it. Let me briefly address both points.

I have long felt that Jews in America have been a detrimental factor in society—dating back to my college student days, at least. But for a long time, it was only a vague, ill-formed feeling, an intuition, that something wasn’t right about the Jewish role in the US. They were only a couple percent of our population, after all; why then did they have such an obviously outsized influence in politics, film, news, and academia? Why was Israel—a tiny nation of some 10 million people, ranking around #100 in the world by population, located more than 5,000 miles away—meriting continuous news coverage? How did Jewish Americans—who, in numbers, roughly equal Scottish Americans and Puerto Rican Americans—earn so much attention? (How often do you hear about Scotland in the news? The same should be true of Israel!) Why was the Holocaust—a disputed historical event now over 80 years old—receiving such frequent mention in the popular media? Any level-headed undergrad student could see that all this was true and problematic. But to what extent, and from whence it came, and what to do about it—all these things required more study.

Even at a young age, it was obvious to me that, in order to garner that much attention in a busy, crowded, crisis-ridden world, someone, somewhere, had to have a lot of influence. As I dug into the matter, it became clear that this disproportionate attention was a bad thing: that it was nearly always slanted in favor of Jews or Israel, and that it necessarily displaced other, more important matters. It also proved that Jews or their lackeys were effectively in charge of American media and academia.

And when I investigated why the government didn’t step in to remedy such imbalances, it became clear that government, too, was dominated by Jewish interests—in part by Jews themselves, in part by deluded Christian Zionists, but mostly by Jewish money that elected favorable politicians and dictated policy on many levels. I discovered the American system to be an entrenched, self-reinforcing, self-protecting system that nearly always functioned on behalf of Jewish or Israeli interests, which in reality meant counter to American (especially White American) interests.

As I say, this seems to be an intrinsically bad thing. Consider, if you will, how well things are going in the US today. Is our nation on the right track, generally speaking? No? If this is your immediate reply, then you are in good company. Public opinion surveys for at least the past two decades have consistently shown that between 55% and 75% of the American public believe that the country is on the wrong track. This is a high level of dissatisfaction, crossing both Republican and Democrat administrations. And it’s not merely a matter of one party dissatisfied when the other is in power; you can dislike the president but still feel that your country is generally doing well, and you can be dissatisfied even when “your guy” won the presidency—as is the case today with many Trump voters. So it is not just party-politics at issue; something deeper is at play.

Then consider this. There is one consistent political condition across the decades and across party lines: Jewish influence and Jewish control of government. It works on both Republicans and Democrats, and to a lesser degree on the Greens and other minor parties. It has long been known that Republicans get at least 25% of their total political funding from Jewish sources, and Democrats, at least 50%. This is astonishing, considering that there are some 13,000 lobbyists in Washington, all given money by various groups to influence policy; and yet, just one lobby—the Jewish Lobby—gives 25%, 50%, or more of all campaign donations. Once we learn this fact, it is not at all surprising that Jewish interests predominate.

So why don’t we make such donations illegal? Because the very people who would do this are the ones corrupted by the money in the first place. Jews naturally are quite happy with the system as it is, and they block any efforts that might reduce their influence. The system is, in effect, self-corrupting, and only radical action can change that.

Call me an anti-Semite if you will, but I see all this as an extremely negative situation—and I have for over three decades. If Jews are a 2%-minority in this country, and yet our government, our media, our academia, and our business enterprises consistently and demonstrably act in their favor, how can that be anything but malicious?

This situation is hardly new, by the way. In fact, it goes back well over 100 years—before wealthy American Jews pressured FDR into becoming involved in World War Two, before they pressured Woodrow Wilson to declare war on Germany during World War One, back at least to 1911, when an emerging US Jewish Lobby overcame President Taft’s wishes and “persuaded” a compliant Congress to cancel a longstanding US-Russia trade treaty. It is a long and sordid story.

Already by the 1920s, it was obvious to perceptive observers that Jewry had an excessive and detrimental impact on American society. Back in 1921, Henry Ford wrote the following in his paper The Dearborn Independent: “If you could put a tag marked ‘Jewish’ on every part of your life that is Jew-controlled, you would be astonished at the showing” (August 13). In 1921! That’s 105 years ago! And would you guess that the situation is better, or worse, today? Bingo.

The Last Straw(s)

As I said, all this had been obvious to me for decades. Equally obvious was the need to take action. As a faculty member at the University of Michigan, I was a leading voice for BDS action (boycott, divestment, sanction) of Israel, and I supported both student and faculty efforts to press this issue.1 Unfortunately, my university is heavily Jewish—it has around 5,000 Jewish students, comprising about 15% of the total student population; this ranks U-M at #10 nationally for Jewish percentage, and #5 for total Jewish population. Concomitantly, it also has a large number of Jewish faculty and administrators, right up to the Board of Regents. Naturally, then, it has resolutely resisted all BDS-related actions (despite divesting from South African apartheid in 1988). Again, for anyone who was remotely paying attention, it was clear that Jewish power within the university was steering policy in its favor. And my university is obviously not alone in this regard; to date, no major American university has divested from Israel.

Then came the last straw: or rather, two last straws. The first was the aftermath of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, in which Israel, rather than finding and punishing the perpetrators, elected to decimate all of Gaza. Thus far, at least 100,000 Palestinians have been killed, and perhaps double or even triple that figure; and of the dead, some 60% are women, children, and the elderly.

For all those who were, for years, reluctant to act against Israeli apartheid, this should have been the last straw. On top of institutional apartheid, we now have outright genocide and mass-murder of innocents, broadcast to the world for all to see. It is not debatable, not in dispute; it is not a “grey area,” not justifiable self-defense, and certainly not justice. It is mass criminality committed by the Jewish state and supported by large majorities of Jewish civilians, both in Israel and abroad. Divesting from Israeli crimes against humanity is the very least that could be done.

In the three-plus years of this ongoing genocidal catastrophe, what has the American government done? It has aided the criminals. During the first 18 months under the Biden-Harris administration, absolutely no meaningful critical action was taken against Israel. To the contrary: Biden approved ongoing annual assistance of $3.8 billion to the Jewish state, and he authorized a special one-time “security package” of $14 billion in early 2024. Trump has likewise done nothing to penalize Israeli crimes, and has, like his predecessor, continued the flow of aid and weapons. It has been reported that more than $25 billion in total aid has gone to Israel since October 7, 2023, and another $33 billion in arms transfers.

What better proof could there be for Jewish control of US government than that two presidents as different as Biden and Trump are unified in their unconditional support for Israeli crimes against humanity?

As if that was not enough, look at the reaction to American protesters against the Gaza genocide. Students who protested on college campuses were harassed, arrested, fired from university jobs, and even expelled; and if they happened to be non-citizens, some were even deported. Working adults who protested, even if only on social media, were fired, fined, demoted, or otherwise penalized. Notable celebrities who were punished include Macklemore, Susan Sarandon, Melissa Barrera, Maha Dakhil, Sally Rooney, Bella Hadid, Mia Khalifa, David Velasco, and Zara Larsson; countless other lesser individuals also surely paid a price.

This was a particularly rude awakening for the traditional Left, who like to champion the rights of indigenous peoples, non-Whites, gays, the disabled, and others said to suffer from systemic discrimination. But the leftist Jewish sponsors were fine with “Black Lives Matter,” anti-“far right” actions, antifa-style actions, and so on; but when it came to defending Palestinians, the Jewish power structure attacked leftist and liberal protesters ruthlessly. Once again, this was a seminal lesson in Jewish power-politics: Jews rule in America, and if you run afoul of their interests, you will be attacked. Leftists and liberals thus discovered the hard way what those on “the right” have known for years.

Then we have the second last straw: The US-Israeli war on Iran, which began with an act of mass murder on February 28, 2026.2 This war, now into its eighth month and showing no signs of resolution, is the quintessential “war for the Jews.” It is the paradigmatic case, in fact. It can hardly be clearer or more obvious that Trump initiated the war at the behest of Netanyahu and the American Jewish Lobby, who feared an increasingly powerful and influential Iran. Trump’s weak-to-nonexistent justification—that Iran was a “sponsor of terrorism” (as if the US and Israel were not) and that it was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons capable of reaching “US allies” (meaning Israel)—was always ludicrous and lacking in evidence. Every nation has a right to create enriched uranium, including to weapons-grade; there is no international law prohibiting this. And any violent actions sponsored by Iran over the years pale in comparison to American and Israeli terrorism.

This is clearly Trump’s “war for the Jews,” but the mass of Republican politicians support it, if only de facto. Of current Republican congressmen, only four senators have actually voted to end the war: Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Thom Tillis; in the House, a few have offered lip service to the idea (Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna introduced a bill in the House to prohibit military involvement against Iran without Congressional approval—supported by four Republicans (Tom Barrett of Michigan, Warren Davidson of Ohio and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania). Importantly, no one speaks out against the root cause of the problem: Israeli genocidal fanaticism backed by a malignant and disastrously influential American Jewish Lobby. None demand an end to all Israeli financial and military aid; none call for sanctions on Israel; none question the role and the power of the Jewish Lobby.

Democrats are little better—and predictably so, given their greater addiction to Jewish money. We see some slight progress from the much-abused Democratic Socialists of America, whose platform calls for an end to foreign wars, radically cutting military and Pentagon spending, withdrawing from NATO, and reducing or eliminating military aid to Israel. But even they will not discuss sanctioning Israel, let alone tackling the corrupting power of the American Jewish Lobby, let alone calling out Jews and Zionists for who they are.

These two “last straws” have surely served to awaken large numbers of new people, prompting them to shake off their prior reticence and to relook at world events. Now we need to mobilize them for action.

For any remaining skeptics, we need only point to the indisputable facts. Jews in fact dominate our major media corporations.3 Jews in fact dominate Big Tech.4 Jews in fact donate the lion’s share of all political funding.5 If you doubt me on these facts, take a few minutes and check them; if you don’t doubt me, then work toward change. We allowed this to happen, and we can change it.

My Body, My Vote

In light of all this, I can only conclude that nothing will improve in the US or in the American-lackey nations of Europe, until we break the back of Jewish power in this country. There are faster ways to do this (revolution, secession) and slower ways, like electoral politics, but now, in light of the looming midterms, we need to ask what we can do along this line.

For me, the conclusion is clear: Vote for the most anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-Jew candidate that you can find. At this point in time, nothing else really matters.

If you are voting in some sort of Republican primary or single-party race, where all the candidates are Republicans, vote for the most anti-Jew Republican—because nothing else matters. If you are voting in a single-party Democratic race, where all the candidates are Democrats, vote for the most anti-Jew Democrat—because nothing else matters. If you are voting in an ordinary contested election, vote for the most anti-Jew candidate, regardless of party—because nothing else matters.

Case in point: In my home state of Michigan, I have a choice for senator between the Democrat Abdul El-Sayed and the Republican Mike Rogers.6 Now, I’m generally not inclined to vote for a liberal Muslim Democrat, but I will be voting for El-Sayed—because he is the most anti-Jew, and nothing else matters.

One other point to note here: Don’t be confused about the ‘Zionist’ versus ‘Jew’ issue. Nearly all Jews are Zionists of a sort, in that they support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state in Palestine as a global Jewish refuge. Some may wish to allow Arab citizens, some may also support a Palestinian state, but virtually all support the core existence of a theologically- and racially-defined Jewish state, and that is the essence of Zionism. For too many people, ‘Zionist’ is the polite term for Jew; but if we don’t call a spade a spade, then we risk looking too compliant and too timid. Current events demand brutal honesty.

Realistic Goals

Finally, we need to be clear and realistic about our goals here. The long-term goal is obvious: a total restructuring of the current Jewish-led social order. Short-term, though, and barring the more extreme options cited above, we need to keep in mind that the electoral process is slow and uncertain. In voting for anti-Jewish candidates, we don’t necessarily expect them to win; naturally, they will have massive Jewish funding directed against them, and in a crude, clumsy, mass-democracy like we have in America and Europe, money has its effect. Even if they win a few races, don’t expect them to act decisively; like most politicians, any winners would likely yield to Jewish pressure and quickly back away from their prior demands.

But for now, all this doesn’t matter. What matters is the rhetoric, the language, and the implicit assumptions: Simply by publicly taking even a mild anti-Jewish stance, such politicians open up the ground for new approaches to the Jewish Question. They make a critical perspective acceptable; they trigger new ideas and new thinking in people; and they incite a Jewish-led reaction that is helpful to our cause. All this is a huge step forward, as it prepares the way for stronger rhetoric, and stronger action, in the future.

As much as I hate to oversimplify a complex situation, I think current events have forced our hand. It is time to be a one-issue voter.

It is rational.

It is moral.

It is right.

On November 3, I will be voting anti-Jew. Join me.

David Skrbina, PhD, is a former professor of philosophy from the University of Michigan, Dearborn. He is the author or editor of a dozen books, including The Jesus Hoax (2nd ed., 2024), The Metaphysics of Technology (Routledge, 2015), and Panpsychism in the West (MIT Press, 2017).

  1. See, for example, this article from 2006.

  2. I bypass here the earlier, “Twelve Day War,” involving the same belligerents, of June 2025.

  3. Comcast (Brian Roberts), Disney (Dana Walden, and until recently, Bob Iger), Warner Bros (Michael DeLuca), Paramount Skydance (David and Larry Ellison), and Fox (Zionist Murdoch family, likely part-Jewish). Or check the names of any motion picture studio head. Or consider the leading presenters at CNN: Wolf Blitzer, Dana Bash, Jake Tapper, John Berman, Bianna Golodryga, Carl Bernstein, Max Boot, Oren Lieberman, Jeremy Diamond.

  4. Larry Ellison (Oracle), Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Larry Page (Google), Sergey Brin (Google), Michael Dell (Dell Computers), Adam Mosseri (Instagram), Safra Catz (Oracle), Arthur Levinson (Apple), Sam Altman (OpenAI), Alex Karp (Palantir), Gary Cohn (IBM), Dario Amodei (Anthropic), and Andy Jassy (Amazon).

  5. See, for example, Gil Troy’s study, “The Jewish Vote.”

  6. The minor-party senate candidates in Michigan—Doug Marsh, Lydia Christensen, and Tim Long—are no more anti-Jew than El-Sayed; if one of them were, he or she would have my vote.

The Brooklyn Strike That Tested the Black-Jewish Alliance

/6 Comments/in /by

Contrary to the celebratory myth that the Civil Rights movement ushered in an era of seamless egalitarian brotherhood, the actual implementation of its ideals exposed bitter, ethnic rivalries even among the very groups that worked to undermine White society.

On May 9, 1968, 19 educators received letters from the Ocean Hill-Brownsville governing board telling them their work in the Brooklyn district had ended. 13 were teachers and 6 were administrators. The board said the personnel had obstructed an experiment in which Black and Puerto Rican parents would finally govern schools that had long failed their children. Jewish union organizer Albert Shanker and the United Federation of Teachers replied that the board had denied the educators due process.

The letters were suffused with ethnic tension. New York had not delivered meaningful school integration, and Black and Puerto Rican parents had watched a remote Board of Education preside over over-crowded schools, thin resources, and a curriculum that did little to reflect the needs of their children. Community control grew from that failure. If the system would keep neighborhood schools segregated, organizers argued, then parents should have real authority over staffing, curriculum, and daily school life. In response, the city created 3 demonstration districts in Ocean Hill-Brownsville, Harlem, and the Lower East Side.

Ocean Hill-Brownsville was at the center of this controversy. Ford Foundation support and Mayor John Lindsay’s decentralization agenda helped create the experiment, but officials never clearly settled the scope of its authority. Rhody McCoy, the Black unit administrator, and the governing board treated meaningful control as the power to choose and remove personnel. The UFT treated the same claim as a threat to a citywide contract, tenure rules, and the safeguards that protected teachers from arbitrary discipline. The mandate invariably invited a collision.

Shanker’s own path explains why he saw the conflict through labor rights and why his response became so charged. Born on September 14, 1928, he was the son of Yiddish-speaking immigrants from Czarist Russia who settled in New York City. His father Morris delivered newspapers, and his mother Mamie was a garment worker who held union cards in both the International Ladies Garment Workers Union and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union. At Stuyvesant High School he headed the debate team. At the University of Illinois he majored in philosophy and graduated with honors before pursuing a doctorate at Columbia. When funds ran out, a per-diem substitute teaching job at PS 179 in East Harlem drew him into union organizing. He built the United Federation of Teachers from the Teachers Guild, won collective bargaining rights for New York teachers through the 1960 strike, and became UFT president in 1964.

With respect to the May letters, the UFT was fiercely opposed to the firing of its members. The union went on strike three times that fall, and by the third strike, which began October 14, the citywide shutdown had drawn nearly 57,000 teachers from classrooms and left more than 1 million students out of school. Ocean Hill-Brownsville schools tried to stay open with replacement staff and community support. The immediate conflict forced a devastating choice on families who wanted both stable schooling and the power to shape it. In November, state intervention restored the striking teachers and ended the experiment’s effective autonomy.

This was no ordinary teacher strike. Richard Parrish, a labor and civil rights veteran and AFT vice president, broke with Shanker to help found the UFT’s Black Caucus, which opposed the strike, backed decentralization, and called for schools to reopen. An anonymous leaflet used strident anti-Jewish language and circulated widely. A Black teacher read a student’s anti-Jewish poem on WBAI, deepening the controversy. The UFT distributed the anonymous leaflet broadly, and historians have noted that its origins were never definitively established—with some scholars raising the possibility that it was a provocative plant rather than an authentic product of the community control movement.

Writing in a leftist publication,  Paul Buhle provides this summary:

Historian Jerald Podair has brilliantly captured the ambience of the social democratic milieu under pressure. UFTers of the middle 1960s determinedly insisted, for instance, upon a racially inclusive curriculum, but with entirely predictable contours. The union’s Committee on African-American History seemed to bury the old mint julep version of slavery and reconstruction. But it just as effectively buried Malcolm X (indeed, Shanker seized and destroyed thousands of copies of a curriculum guide which credited Malcolm’s historical contribution) and any approach which placed the black experience outside the melting pot that usefully melts all the unfortunate group traits of worthy aspirants in the process of a cheerful upward mobility.5

For this worldview, closely reflecting the pseudo-sociology of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a “culture of poverty” rooted in a matriarchal black community rather than the repressive social conditions of the rural south or the increasingly jobless north was the real hindrance to African American advance. Such cultural determinists prided themselves upon banishing genetic theories of inferiority, but by assuming that youth could be remolded without broad changes in the property relations of society [my emphasis], they substituted a subtextually race-linked hypothesis just as virulent for the new era. Rising neoconservative operatives, like Shanker ally (and Reagan Administration official) Diane Ravitch, naturally used the cry of “competence” as a meritocratic club over the heads of victims in the failing systems, as if all school systems or individuals had access to the same resources or as if the ability of a talented and fortunate tenth of a talented tenth demonstrated the hopelessness of the 99 percent.

Ironically, the most articulately ferocious opponents of the UFT, the black middle class, shared this ideology to a very large extent, although with a difference. It wanted and demanded an affirmative action adjustment of available resources, exactly what the ideologues of meritocracy could never grant.

BLACK/JEWISH TENSIONS MEANWHILE FLARED, and not only in New York or among teachers, students and parents, but in the general population. Ranging from the emerging Jewish institutional support for the Vietnam war (which, it should be noted, ordinary Jews overwhelmingly opposed), subsidies to suburbanization alongside the abandonment of the inner cities, and the all-too-familiar black street rage at the Jewish teachers, lawyers, landlords, employers and caseworkers (many of whom warmly assisted African Americans, while others coldly cheated or demeaned them), the temperature rose.6 Power-seeking nationalists, most if not all of them thoroughly regressive, seized the moment on both sides — notwithstanding the media spin that portrayed one side of the polemic as civilized discourse and the other as barbaric noise.

Albert Shanker’s chief historic role was to pour gasoline on the spreading fire.7 Another, very different kind of leader might have taken early pride in the levels of teacher unionization achieved, and spent the next era striving to cool tempers. It would have been an honorable if not morally unmarred history, and a very unlikely one in this case. Shanker had a personal stake in the spotlight, according to friend and foe, amounting to megalomania. Like the calculating Vietnam hawk-propagandist-priest John O’Connor who raised himself through connections within the post-Vatican II’s New Right Church leadership into Cardinal status, Shanker was not just fighting for his political life. In his mind’s eye, he saw his name carved upon the historical record.

The crisis also created space for a more militant Jewish backlash. Meir Kahane founded the Jewish Defense League in May 1968 as a direct response to the antisemitism that surfaced during the Ocean Hill-Brownsville strike, borrowing the confrontational language of the Black Power movement—a movement he explicitly used as the model for the JDL—and channeling working-class Jewish fear into an ethnic politics of armed self-defense. The SPLC documented how “the strikes brought to the surface racial tension between the predominantly Jewish teachers union and Black residents seeking greater control over their neighborhood schools,” driving outer-borough Jewish workers toward Kahane’s organization.

The settlement did not erase that rupture. The 1969 decentralization law replaced the experimental districts with a weaker citywide structure of elected community boards while preserving central authority and teacher protections. New York eliminated that system under mayoral control in 2002. Meanwhile, Shanker went on to lead the American Federation of Teachers from 1974 until his death on February 22, 1997.

The 1968 New York school shutdown exposed the structural fault lines underlying the historic alliance between Black civil rights activists and the Jewish institutional establishment. While Jewish figures had provided vital organizational and financial backing to early civil rights battles, the Ocean Hill-Brownsville experiment proved that Black leaders were determined to operate on their own terms, even if it meant directly targeting Jewish union leadership.

This conflict revealed the inherent instability of coalitions managed by organized Jewry, where newly empowered groups inevitably push beyond their designated roles as golems and challenge the interests of their Jewish benefactors. Modern parallels abound, most visibly when Black Lives Matter factions alienated traditional Jewish supporters by embracing Palestinian liberation activism.

Disillusioned by Black unreliability over the course of multiple decades, organized Jewry is now scouting new non-White proxies to continue its campaign of national destabilization.

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to his “Substack” newsletter by visiting “José Niño Unfiltered” on Substack.com.